A woman has been awarded compensation for injuries she sustained while being struck by the wing-mirror of a van while jogging in her local area.

In January 2013, Donna Woods (47) and her friend were out on a job along the Ballynacarragy to Mullingar Road . While jobbing Donna was struck by the wing mirror of a passing van. Donna suffered a fractured wrist due to the impact, and also injuries to her right hand, elbow, shoulder and jaw.

Donna applied for an Injuries Board assessment of her claim for compensation for being hit by a wing mirror, but the driver of the van - Joseph Tyrell - refused to give his consent for an assessment. As a result, Donna was given an authorisation to pursue her claim in court.

Due to the potential value of the claim, the hearing was held at the High Court before Mr Justice Kevin Cross. At the hearing, Judge Cross was told that Donna - a teacher from Mullingar in County Westmeath - had previously been a "very active lady".

The judge also heard that on the day of the incident, Donna and her friend were jogging in the opposite direction to the traffic. A tractor and trailer had just passed them on the far side of the road, and they had seen Tyrell pull over onto the grass verge to give the tractor a wide berth.

The two women continued running, as they expected Tyrell would drive back onto the road once the tractor had passed. However, Tyrell continued to drive along the grass verge - catching Donna with the wing mirror of his van and causing her injuries.

Defending the claim for compensation for being hit by a wing mirror, Tyrell argued that Donna has been at least partly responsible for her injuries by her and her friend running along the road two abreast and had neglected to wear high visibility clothing.

Tyrell´s defence was dismissed by Judge Cross. The judge said that, had Tyrell rejoined the road once the tractor had passed, there would have been sufficient room for him to pass Donna safely. The judge also found that Donna had been wearing bright-coloured clothing on the morning of the accident.

The judge awarded Donna €134,000 compensation for being hit by a wing mirror, stating that Donna had suffered quite significant injuries that would prevent her from competing in physically demanding sports activities for a long time.

A man has received compensation worth 25% of the total claim after sustaining a brain injury in a road accident for which he was partially liable.

While driving on a local road in January 2009, Francis Smith of Edgeworthstown in County Longford was forced to quickly turn out of the way of an oncoming car. As Francis took the sharp manoeuvre to avoid a collision with the car, he collided with the back of a council lorry that was parked ahead of some roadworks.

Francis-who was only eighteen years of age at the time of the incident-sustained traumatic permanent brain damage in the accident. As a consequence of his injuries, Francis has cognitive and physical disabilities. He is no longer able to return to work as a full-time employment at a local factory or live independently. Francis is cared for at the family home by his mother, Martina Dempsey.

As her son was unable to make the claim himself, Martina made a brain injury claim for compensation against Longford County Council. She stated in her claim that the council had been negligent by failing to give adequate warning of the roadworks by means of bollards or warning signs, and that there was no flagman in place to warn oncoming traffic of the obstruction in the road.

Martina further alleged that the lorry into which Francis had crashed was parked in such a way that it protruded extensively into the road. Due to the proximity of the roadworks to a bend in the road, the lorry, it was claimed, was a danger to other road users who were unable to view oncoming traffic.

The defendants denied its liability for Francis´ brain injuries. The council counter-claimed that Francis himself had significantly contributed to the cause of the accident by driving too fast into the bend in the road. However, at the High Court, Mr Justice Kevin Cross heard that a €750,000 settlement of the brain injury claim for compensation had been agreed between the two parties.

The judge was informed that the settlement of the brain injury claim for compensation represented 25% of the full value of the claim, Judge Cross approved the settlement. The judge commented in his closing remarks that the settlement was a good one in the circumstances and he wished Francis all the best for the future.

A cyclist who was injured when a white van collided with him has received compensation for his injuries-in spite of staged photographs taken by the van driver in an attempt to contest the claim.

In May 2015, Walter Hamilton was cycling on the outskirts of Edinburgh City when he was knocked off of his bike by a van that was turning right immediately ahead of him. Walter fell to the ground and suffered severe lacerations to his face, and damage to one of his knees.

According to the cyclist, the driver of the van was immediately apologetic after the accident occurred and admitted all liability for the collision. However, when Walter made a claim for a bike accident injury against Aviva Insurance, it was revealed that the driver had given his own insurance company a different version of events-and had staged photographs to support his claims.

Due to the false photographic evidence, Aviva Insurance denied their policyholder's liability for the accident and contested the injury claim. Walter had taken his own photographs of the accident scene and sought legal counsel to bring a case against Aviva Insurance.

After receiving Walter's own photographs, Aviva Insurance admitted liability for the accident. Despite this admission, they tried to offer Walter a settlement much lower than his injuries entitled him to receive. Walter made moves to follow through his legal action in court. Less than three weeks before the hearing was due to take place, Aviva Insurance agreed to pay Walter a settlement of £17,000 for his injuries.

Walter's legal representative criticised the insurance company for believing the staged photographs, and for initially offering Walter a low level of compensation. She stated: "Walter's case also shows the importance of taking photos. If possible, photos should be taken immediately following a collision, as these are the best evidence in supporting a particular version of events. Insurance companies often try and under-settle cases by putting forward low offers as they did initially in Walter's case, but a fair level of compensation was fought for and won."

A cyclist has received £100,000 from the Court of Session in Edinburgh due to a road defect which caused him to have an accident.

In December 2013, David Robinson-now fifty-two years of age-was cycling with eleven other members of the Edinburgh Cycling Club along the A701 near Broughton when he led the group of riders towards the bridge crossing the Biggar Water.

As David approached the bridge, the front wheel of his bicycle stuck in a metal groove on the road. David was thrown from his bike and landed on hard on the ground. He sustained multiple cuts and bruises, soft tissue injuries and fractures to his wrist and elbow of his right arm.

An investigation was launched into the circumstances surrounding the accident, and it was discovered the groove in the road surface was caused by a joint between an old masonry arch and a newer concrete construction and it was one of several that sat proud of the road surface. It was hazardous to all cyclists who used the road.

After seeking legal aid, David claimed compensation for injuries in a cycling accident against Scottish Borders Council. The defendants contested the claim for compensation on the basis that the metal groove did not constitute a defect, and that David´s accident was more likely due to his own negligence and lack of care.

Despite the dispute over liability, an assessment of David´s injuries was conducted. It was agreed that if Scottish Borders Council was found negligent, David´s settlement of compensation for injuries in a cycling accident would amount to £100,000.

The case was brought to the Court of Session, where Lady Wolffe was told that the metal groove would not have been present at all if roadworks conducted by the council in May 2015 had been completed to a satisfactory level. The roadworks, it was claimed, should have brought the level of the tarmac on the road up to or above the level of the exposed joint, thus preventing it from causing damage to cyclists.

The judge found in David´s favour-dismissing the council´s argument that David should have taken more care to prevent his accident. Lady Wolffe said there was no evidence to support allegations that David was riding inappropriately "in either speed or manner, having regard to the weather and road conditions". The judge then confirmed the settlement of compensation for injuries in a cycling accident at £100,000.

Translink-the company responsible for public transport in Northern Ireland-paid out £1,948,000 bus accident compensation between April 2010 and April 2015.

Translink-which operates Ulsterbus, Citybus, Metro and Goldlink bus services and the NI Railway-revleated that between April 2010 and April 2015, they paid out almost £2 million in bus accident compensation to passengers and other road users who had suffered an injury or property damage due to the negligence of its drivers.

The figure of £1,948,000 bus accident compensation was released by Regional Development Minister Michelle McIlveen in response to an Assembly question from SDLP MLA John Dallat. Mr Dallat - who sits on the Northern Ireland regional development committee - commented that the amount of bus accident compensation was "horrendous".

Translink has since issued a statement in which it said the company was committed to delivering the highest safety standards. Mr Dallat said that the board needed to implement measures that would avoid situations which led to payouts, and also review its policy on defending claims for bus accident compensation made against Translink.

News of how much bus accident compensation the company has paid out come just months after unions warned that budget cuts were having a "devastating impact" on public safety. £13m of cutbacks were made by the Department for Regional Development during the last financial year - a year in which Translink recorded the worst operating losses in its history (£8.4 million).

A Translink spokesperson said: "It is important to put some context around these figures which cover a five-year period. The level of compensation paid out is less than 0.5% of our annual revenue, and more importantly, Translink's annual level of compensation is also amongst the lowest paid out when benchmarked against other UK operators".

He continued by saying "We carry around 80 million passenger journeys every year and their safety is a top priority for everyone at Translink. We are committed to maintaining our high safety standards across the business and h

A judge has thrown a car crash compensation claim from court after Facebook photos revealed the plaintiff to be deceitful.

Rita Milinovic (29) of Citywest, Dublin, was involved in a minor collision with another car in a car park in April 2014. The other driver was found to be at fault. Despite the accident not being a serious one, Rita claimed that it caused her to suffer from a back injury that prevented her from returning to her job as a waitress, as she had difficulty carrying objects for prolonged periods of time.

Rita sought legal counsel, and made a claim for €60,000 in compensation against Paul Ferris (the driver of the van) and his employer-O'Dwyer Property Management Limited. The defendants contested the value of the compensation, and due to this dispute, the case was brought to the Circuit Civil Court, where it was heard by court president Mr Justice Raymond Groarke.

Rita winced in the witness stand as she gave a testimony as to how the accident had negatively affected her quality of life and disrupted her ability to make a living. However, the case collapsed before her when the defendants presented photographs they had taken from Rita's Facebook page to the court.

The photographs included Rita doing various physically demanding activities, such as working out in a gym in Dublin or at the top of Bray Head a mere six weeks after her accident. The barristers representing the defendants suggested that Rita's claim for car crash in a car park compensation was a lie from start to finish.

Judge Groarke accepted that the photographs of Rita competing in a body sculptor competition would not have required much physical effort, but those of her in the gym depicted a scenario "which somebody with a bad back would certainly not be engaging in." The judge added: "Trying to be as politically correct as one can be in this situation, it doesn't look like a person with such a fine physical physique as Ms Milinovic could have been suffering a great deal of pain."

The judge further commented that the law demands that people come to court in total honesty and while Rita may have sustained some injury from the car park incident, she had certainly been deceitful in court. The judge dismissed Rita´s injury claim for a crash in a car park and ordered that she pay the defendants legal fees and court costs.

A woman has received nearly €23,000 in compensation for a slip and fall incident that took place in her local Dunnes Stores.

In November 2011, Anna Manning (66) of Clondalkin, Dublin, was browsing her local Dunnes Stores when she slipped on a potato wedge that had not been cleared up from a previous spill in the shop, and fell to the shop floor. Anna caught herself with her hands and knees, but was required to attend her GP the next day to seek medical attention for pains in her back and neck.

Anna sought legal advice, and made a claim for compensation for a slip on a potato wedge in Dunnes. The defendants denied liability for the accident, and refused to give consent to the Injuries Board for Anna's claim to be assessed. Anna was issued with authorisation to pursue her claim for compensation in court.

The case was brought to the Circuit Civil Court, where it was heard by Mr Justice Raymond Groarke. The judge was informed that Anna's slip and fall had aggravated a pre-existing condition, and that she had also sustained a wrist injury. The injury was negatively affecting Anna's daily life, causing her some degree of difficulty.

Dunnes Stores contested these claims, arguing that it was Anna's own lack of care which caused her injures, and that they were not liable for the accident. The judge dismissed this claim of contributory negligence, and ruled in Anna's favour. He stated that Dunnes themselves had been negligent for failing to thoroughly clean up the previous spill. He added that Anna was a "very poor candidate" to fabricate her claim for compensation.

Anna was awarded €22,900 compensation for a slip on a potato wedge in Dunnes. The judge commented that, on the balance of probabilities,the potato wedge on which Anna had slipped had likely been a "brother or sister" of the wedges that had been spilled earlier in the day.

Fenella Sinclair (62) of Tunbridge Wells, Kent, was cycling along Broadwater Forest Lane in July 2011 when a 4x4 vehicle clipped the wheel of her bicycle.

The incident caused Fenella to fall from her bicycle and strike her head on the road. She was brought to hospital, where she was diagnosed with multiple fractures to her skull, brain damage, spinal damage and several broken ribs. As a consequence of her injuries, Fenella to this day remains in a minimally conscious state, four years after the incident. She is entirely dependant on others, and requires 24 hour care.

An investigation was launched into the accident, and the police brought no charges against the driver of the vehicle, Rachel Joyner. However, on her mother's behalf, Fenella's daughter made a claim for cycling injury compensation. Fenella was too brain damaged to make the claim herself, and was also unable to remember the incident that left her so severely injured.

The defendants denied fault, and as a result, Fenella's daughter consulted with an accident reconstruction expert and her solicitors in order to determine the circumstances leading up to the incident. The solicitors, upon receiving information from the Kent police investigators, were able to build a case to support the compensation claim.

Rachel Joyner still refused to accept liability for the accident, resulting in the case being brought to the High Court. Mrs Justice Cox ruled that Rachel Joyner had been negligent in her driving of the vehicle after three days of testimony had been delivered. She was attributed three-quarters of the liability for the injuries, and the rest was delegated to Fenella herself, allowing for the cyclist's position in the road at the time that contact been the wheel and car was made.

The case was then adjourned so that damages could be assessed and predictions of Fenella's future needs could be made. The settlement could reach several million pounds, according to Fenella's solicitor.

A collision between a motorcyclist and a tractor results in £1 million being awarded to the motorcyclists on compensation for the various injuries he sustained.

In July 2011, Warwick Buswell (44) of the Isle of Wight was travelling along Newport Road on his motorcycle. When he rode over the top of a hill and collided with a tractor and trailer that had been blocking the width of the road, which had been invisible to him until the crash occurred.

Warwick was brought to hospital where he was diagnosed with a serious head injury and several other injuries to his body. It was later discovered that the driver of the tractor was uninsured, and as a result, Warwick made a tractor accident compensation claim against the Motor Insurers Board, who are responsible for settling claims when the driver of the vehicle involved is lacks insurance.

Warwick alleged that the driver of the tractor-trailer combination had not used to correct exit to get onto the road from the farm, suggesting that had he used a more suitable exit, the accident could have been avoided entirely.

The defendant denied full liability for the injuries sustained by Warwick, saying the Warwick had contributory negligence. They claimed that Warwick was either travelling too fast on the road at 60mph, or that he failed to stop in time when the tractor and trailer came into view.

Due to defendant contesting the liability, the claim for injury compensation went to the High Court in London. Warwick's barrister stated that "His case is that this was obviously an unsafe place to exit the field and that there are a large number of alternatives which would have been safer." The hearing is still ongoing.

A settlement has been awarded to a man who suffered serious brain damage after a being involved in a motorcycle accident.

In May 2009, Marcel Beasley was driving his motorcycle along the A453 north of Barton-In-Farbis in Nottinghamshire. Marcel moved to the centre of the road to overtake slower vehicles as traffic slowed while approaching a roundabout.

Marcel slowed and moved back into the line of traffic to allow oncoming vehicles to pass. When he attempted to move back out into the centre of the road to overtake some more vehicles, he drove directly into a vehicle whose owner had made a quick and unexpected U-turn.

Marcel was thrown from his motorcycle across the bonnet of the car he had struck, across the road, where he landed in a ditch. The emergency services were notified, and he was airlifted to the Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham. He spent several weeks in the facility in a coma until he was transferred to Richardson Mews in Northamptonshire. There, he endured fifteen months of treatment in the facility's specialist unit for brain injuries.

Marcel has been left with limited mobility, and is now wheelchair dependant. He has speech problems, limited cognitive ability and problems with behaviour due to the brain trauma. Due to a brachial plexus injury, his left arm has also been rendered useless.

On his nephew's behalf, Cadell Beasley made a claim for compensation against the driver who decided to take a U-turn, Paul Alexander. The driver admitted that he had not noticed Marcel driving when he attempted to make the U-turn, but denied full liability, stating that Marcel had been driving too fast and was moving in and out of the line of traffic.

The Royal Courts of Justice heard the claim in July 2012. Evidence was presented by several witnesses to Sir Raymond Jack. He eventually ruled in Marcel's favour, stating that even if Marcel had been driving more slowly, the collision with the car still would have caused him significant injury. He also stated that his driving in and out of the line of traffic was not a cause of the accident.

Sir Raymond Jack adjourned the case so that an assessment of Marcel's future needs could be made, but stated that Marcel was to receive interim payments of compensation for Alexander's insurance company. Earlier this month in the High Court, Marcel was awarded a total settlement estimated to be £10 million. This includes a £4.2 million lump sum, and annual tax-free index-linked payments of £175,000.